Fluor Corp (FLR) 2012 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Fluor Corporation's second-quarter conference call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode and a question-and-answer session will follow management's presentation. A replay of today's conference will be available at approximately 8.30 PM Eastern Time today, accessible on Fluor's website at www.Fluor.com. The Web replay will be available for 30 days. A telephone replay will also be available through 7.30 Eastern Time on August 8 at the following telephone number. 888-203-1112. The passcode of 5948843 will be required.

At this time for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Ken Lockwood, Vice President of Corporate Finance and Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Mr. Lockwood.

Thanks very much, Operator. Welcome, everyone, to Fluor's second-quarter 2012 conference call. With us today on the call are David Seaton, Fluor's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Biggs Porter, Fluor's Chief Financial Officer. Our earnings announcement was released this afternoon after the market closed. We have posted a slide presentation on our website, which we will reference while making our prepared remarks today.

Before getting started, I would like to refer you to our Safe Harbor note regarding forward-looking statements, which is summarized on slide 2 of the presentation. During today's call and slide presentation, we will be making forward-looking statements which reflect our current analysis of existing trends and information. And there is an inherent risk that actual results and experience could differ materially. You can find a discussion of those risk factors in the Company's Form 10-Q filed on February 22, 2012 and in our 10-Q which was filed earlier today.

During this call, we may discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these amounts with the comparable GAAP measures are reflected in our earnings release and are posted in the investor relations section of our website at investor.fluor.com.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to David Seaton, Fluor's Chairman and CEO. David?

Thanks, Ken. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us here today. Today we will be reviewing our results for the second quarter, and discussing trends we see for the second half of the year.

I'd like to start by covering some of the highlights of our second quarter performance and ask that you please turn to slide 3. Net earnings for the quarter were $161 million, or $0.95 per diluted share. Consolidated segment profit for the quarter was just over $287 million. Which compares favorably with $280 million of segment profit in the second quarter 2011. I'm pleased to report that results for the quarter included double-digit profit growth in all segments except for Power which continues to experience a weak market demand. And includes approximately $15 million in expense associated with NuScale.

Consolidated revenues for the quarter were $7.1 billion, an increase of 18% over $6 billion reported a year ago. New awards were strong, with $7.3 billion in new contract awards, during the quarter. Segment awards included $5 billion in Oil & Gas, $1.1 billion in Industrial & Infrastructure, and almost $800 million in Government. Our consolidated backlog rose to a record $43 billion.

Turning to slide 4. At $5 billion, the Oil & Gas segment had sizable new awards for the quarter. Which included additional scope and incremental releases for a major oil sands expansion in Canada. Ending backlog for Oil & Gas is now at $19.5 billion, which represents a 16% increase over last quarter. And a 30% increase over a year ago. The Oil & Gas group is gaining some momentum. We're encouraged by the recent growth in new awards and backlog. Looking forward, not only do we see a large number of prospects internationally, but our opportunity set in North America is substantial. And should progress into EPC awards as we get into '13, which is what we've discussed, I think, for the last two quarters. We expect that natural gas prices in the United States will remain well within the attractive investment levels. Which will drive significant investment in petrochemical and gas-to-liquids projects. Many of which we're already involved in. Considering our strategic relationship with Dow and the BASF, and a host of other key clients that are considering those major capital expenditures, we're very enthusiastic about this market.

Earlier this month, we announced that we have formed a joint venture with Sao Paolo-based Construcap to pursue engineering, procurement and construction management projects in Brazil. Construcap has been active in Brazil for nearly 70 years. And is one of Brazil's largest construction companies serving the industrial, commercial and heavy civil markets. The joint venture will link Construcap's long-term presence in Brazil with Fluor's project execution leadership. This model, I must say, is very similar to the approach that we took in Mexico some 15 years ago. And you've seen our extremely satisfactory performance with that long-term joint venture with Grupo Eco that we call Ecofluor. Moving to the Industrial & Infrastructure segment, which posted second-quarter awards of $1.1 billion, including additional scope on an iron ore project in West Africa. And an award for a new auto sheet facility for Ma'aden and Alcoa in Saudi Arabia. Backlog at the end of the quarter was $19.5 million, which is about $2 billion lower than last year as a result of the significantly higher revenue burn in the mining and metals business line. With regard to Infrastructure business line, demand for transportation projects is increasing with a number of prospects in the bidding phases that we expect decisions on in the next three to four quarters. We're pleased to report that the I-95 express lanes project reached financial close earlier this week. So we will be adding this project to our backlog in the third quarter.

With regard to greater Gabbard, the project is substantially complete. We are now focused on the arbitration proceedings which are ongoing. There's been no change in our position, which is discussed in more detail in our 10-Q. And we hope for a swift decision from the arbitration panel.

Turning to slide 5. The Government segment's bookings for the quarter were $769 million. Which compares to $1.1 billion last year when we received advanced funding on a LOGCAP IV contract. Our expectation is the task order revenue under LOGCAP IV will remain consistent throughout at least 2013. Ending backlog for the Government segment was $505 million.

Global Services, they booked $279 million in new awards, including renewals of existing operations and maintenance contracts. And we believe that when the US economy picture strengthens, it will have a very positive effect on our O&M markets. Ending backlog for the Global Services segment was $1.9 billion.

The Power segment had $118 million in new awards and an ending backlog $1.7 billion. We are beginning to see the pickup in a number of opportunities for new gas-fired power project generation in North America, which we see as very promising. While the market for new power generation continues to struggle, we can report that Virginia Power has selected Fluor to design and build a new 1,350-megawatt combined cycle facility at the Brunswick County power station. We expect to book the initial phase of this project into backlog in the third quarter. Consistent with our guidance for 2012, the Power segment results included the costs associated with our ongoing research and development activities as it relates to NuScale. NuScale submitted its application for FOA funding in May. And we expect to hear the outcome of the selection process within the next few months.

Overall, we continue to see substantial market opportunities globally. And are particularly encouraged by the growing prospect list in the United States relating to the availability of low-cost shale gas.

With that, I will now turn it over to Biggs to review some of the details of our operating performance, as well as our corporate financial metrics for the quarter. Biggs?

Thanks, David. And good afternoon everyone. Details of second-order results for each operating segment can be found in the earnings release and in the 10-Q. To follow my comments, please turn to slide 6 of the presentation. As David mentioned, Fluor's consolidated backlog was $43 billion, which is up about $500 million over last quarter. The percentage of fixed-price contracts in our overall backlog was 12% at quarter end. This number could increase modestly as we begin to book more power and infrastructure work, which are predominantly fixed price. Our backlog continues to be driven by international markets. At quarter end, only 18% of our backlog was for projects in the United States. But we do expect that our US backlog will grow as we book more power and infrastructure work. And once the expected petrochemical investment cycle commences.

Moving to corporate items on slide 7, G&A expense for the quarter was $31 million, which is comparable for the same period last year. The effective tax rate for the quarter was 33%, which was at the higher end of our expectations due to an increase in state tax expense. For the full year, we continue to expect the rate to be in the low 30%s.

Shifting to the balance sheet, the consolidated cash and marketable securities balance totaled $2.5 billion at quarter end, which is down about $100 million from last quarter. Cash provided by operating activities was $129 million during the quarter. This positive result was driven by earning sources, partially offset by growth in project working capital which, excluding advanced billings, grew in line with revenue. A decline in advanced billings balances drove a cash usage in the quarter.

Capital expenditures for the quarter were $66 million, which compares with $102 million a year ago. Most of our CapEx is directed towards the equipment business line in our Global Services segment. Through six months our CapEx is trending below last year. During the quarter, we repurchased 2.2 million shares for $106 million, and paid $27 million in quarterly dividends.

I would like to conclude my remarks by providing an update on our guidance for 2012, which is on slide 8. Based on strong year-to-date performance, the Company is raising the lower end of its 2012 EPS guidance to a range of $3.50 to $3.80 per diluted share, from its previous guidance of $3.40 to $3.80 per share. Guidance for the year assumes G&A expense will be in the range of $165 million to $175 million.

With that, Operator, we are ready to take questions.

(Operator Instructions) Andy Kaplowitz, Barclays.

Nice quarter. David, looking at backlog going forward, I know you're going to tell me it's lumpy. But the confidence in the Oil & Gas backlog rising over time from here, obviously you had a great quarter. And maybe you can talk about the oil sands in particular? Obviously, you have one large project that's been going on for a while. But you also have a couple FEEDs out there that maybe can convert at some point in the next 6 to 12 months. So maybe you can talk about those.

I think we are seeing a significant FEED activity, which I mentioned in the previous quarter, as well as maybe a quarter before. So we're very active on that. And it gives us good sight into what I believe will be a very robust new award story for 2013 for Oil & Gas. When the FEEDs translate into EPC. So, I think we're at the beginning, like I said last time, of a pretty good cycle for Oil & Gas. With respect to the oil sands, we are continuing to work on several programs up there. And I think, just like this quarter, they're really big slugs of work that come in as backlog. And that's what I think is going to provide a fair amount of the lumpiness that you mentioned. We continue to noodle on how we look at our new award intake. And make sure that we're being very prudent and only taking it in when we have the real sanction from our customers.

Okay, David, that's helpful. So, the other side, looking at my mining, obviously there's been a bit of noise here lately over projects moving to the right, some of the prospects that you have. Your burn rate was obviously very good in the quarter. So maybe you could talk about your burn rate going forward, if there's any potential impact to that. And then just the prospects in mind. Do you still see them out there and how do you look at that glug in I&I going forward?

I think it'll continue to grow. I do believe that we've had several projects move to the right, or have been slowed. Conga being one that has been slowed. And obviously the comments that you've heard from BHP. Neither of which actions impact our outlook in this year. Obviously it would impact next year if they didn't come back. But I still stand by what I said around just the overall market and when the improvement in commodity pricing is expected. When you think about the late '13, early '14 timeframe, and these programs have to be there in order to satisfy those demand equations, or somebody else will get them. In the case of the two that I mentioned, we're continuing to support Conga on a much more modest basis, as we determine the future of that program. But that doesn't impact at all the burn, if you will, that we are anticipating for the rest of this year. And in the case of BHP's comments, we continue to support that program. And even though there's a cash flow concern, I think, by all mining companies, we've planned for it, if you will, in what we've done relative to our burn. And as reflected in the improvement in our guidance.

Thanks, David. I will get back in queue. Good quarter.

Jamie Cook, Credit Suisse.

Good evening and congratulations. Two questions. One, David, I thought the one interesting thing about the quarter is you're finally at that inflection point where you're seeing oil and gas in the I&I backlog. They're finally at similar levels. As we look out over the next 6 to 12 months, do you think we're at that inflection point where the oil and gas awards are strong enough to start outpacing the I&I business? Because that obviously has implications for profitability and margins longer-term, whereas the mix has been negative. And then my second question relates to margins, both on Oil & Gas and I&I. I would assume in Oil & Gas just the backlog that you have, we should be getting to a point where the utilization starts to improve. So what are the two or three things you think we need to see before we hit a 4% on the Oil & Gas margin side? And with regards to Industrial & Infrastructure, you mentioned plus or minus for a couple quarters ago. We've been below 4 the past two quarters. Is 4% now out of the range for the I&I segment? And without I'll get back in queue. And if you want to pawn off the margin question to Biggs, you can do that, too, because he doesn't get the free pass anymore.

Exactly and I will ask Biggs to answer the margin question. But I will address and I'll talk about mining and the transportation piece of Infrastructure, as well. I'm not sure I'd put the same timeframe, Jamie, that you put on Oil & Gas. But I think we're at a point where, as we get into next year -- you've got to understand, we're taking in services on the FEED, which really aren't big from a revenue or backlog perspective. But they're good from a profitability standpoint on the margin percentage basis. I'll stop on that relative to the margin question.

The EPC values are what we are going to see tick up as we get into next year. And I think that you will see oil and gas outpace mining as we get into next year. There's some very large programs. But I think there's also some modest projects out there that we are already working on, that are in the $300 million to $400 million range, as well. Which I think are really good signals relative to the longer-term growth cycle of E&C, beyond '13, into '14 and '15, frankly. And, obviously, that's when a lot of the earnings will drop in. So, I think that's a very good sign.

I think on mining, even though things have pushed to the right, as I said, there's some major programs out there that we're still working on that still make good economic sense for our customers. And it's a matter of timing for them. So I think where I've used the term, lumpy, to describe E&C in the past, I think I'm going to start using that to describe the mining piece. But the other piece of I&I that I think is growing, and we've made this comment before, if you go back almost five quarters, there's been very little bidding activity in the transportation space. In fact, we've got two bids. One bid that's already gone in, and I think three more that go in by the end of the year that are quite sizeable. So when you combine that with the mining piece, I think I&I and that segment has continued growth. But modest because of the amount of burn that you are going to see from a revenue perspective in the out quarters. So it's going to be a put and a take with regard to I&I. But the real, I think, growth is going to be in our E&C sector. So Biggs, if you wouldn't mind addressing the margin question.

Sure. I'll approach the question on both Oil & Gas and I&I. The first thing I would say is that we're focused on profit dollars rather than margin rates. I just want to stipulate that up front. On Oil & Gas, the awards in second quarter do have a fair amount of customer-furnished material content. And, as David said, the EPC will pick up over time and that's going to carry a higher margin rate going forward. But over the next couple quarters, then, margin rates on Oil & Gas will be a little lower than that 4% target that we talked about earlier for the longer-term. But, once again, we want margin expansion and that's the most important thing, irrespective of whether the near-term rate reflects that CFM. We're achieving that. Segment profit in Oil & Gas is up 22% year-over-year. So clearly a success on that front. And the home office hours are going up so that's a good sign for the longer-term, as well.

On I&I, Mike said plus or minus 4%, I think, on the last call. First quarter, second quarter run rate is 3.6%, 3.7%. It's going to vary over time based upon the mix of mining content relative to infrastructure content. And when the milestones are achieved on infrastructure, which enable the higher profit rate recognitions. Based upon what we see right now we will probably stay under that 4% number for the rest of this year. But once again, as the infrastructure jobs come on a materially hit the milestones, we expect those rates to improve over time.

Okay. Thanks. Congrats, and I'll get back in queue.

Scott Levine, JPMorgan.

With regards to, it sounds like on the Oil & Gas side, that in the US, in particular, it's the petrochem and gas-to-liquids that are the engines driving growth. Can you provide a little bit more color and specifics on timing? And help us understand, particularly on the gas-to-liquids side, timing there relative to chemicals? And relative size of the projects that you potentially see moving forward in that area?

I think, first, we're seeing some of the smaller programs that will go into EPC, as we get through the rest of this year. And those are quite good programs for us. The gas-to-liquids programs are of such size, as well as the ethylene cracker programs that we are working on, are of a size to where there is going to be a fair amount of time spent on the FEED. And they are going to be of a size to where a little extra scrutiny from our customers' boards will be applied. And some of those are multi-billion-dollar programs. And there are several of them. So we're really encouraged by the ability to get in on most of these programs so early. And we had a really good batting average of moving them from the FEED into the EPC scopes. But I think those programs going into backlog, from an EPC basis, are probably mid to late next year. But I think there's a significant amount of the small and middle sized that are going to help that growth story within our E&C group.

And then maybe as a follow-up on LNG. I don't think I heard you mention LNG. I was wondering your thoughts on that market, not just in the US but also globally. I know you're on the Santos. But update on prospects throughout the world, and maybe particular thoughts on the US in other new markets, maybe Africa, as well?

Relative to LNG on Santos, we're not actually on the LNG plant. We're on the coal seam methane extraction piece and the transmission. But with respect to LNG, we've been very active over the last couple of quarters in preparing and actually qualifying to bid on several of the programs in the Asia-Pacific region. And we fell like we're very well-positioned to participate in several of those. So that's a change from our past. And I'm quite happy that we've turned the corner relative to LNG and currently have some traction. And I think that the near-term opportunities in LNG are going to be in the Asia-Pacific region, with a little bit of study work done here in the States. And I feel confident the ones that are here in the States, that we will have a shot at being a participant there. So that is a little bit of a change, I think, from our past where we haven't been part of that liquefaction club. I think we've made moves, and partnering moves, to where we're changing the game there.

Got it. Thank you.

Mike Dudas, Sterne Agee.

David, back to mining. The CEOs in the mining industry are concerned about certainly government regulation and issues politically in a lot of these countries that they're operating the mines. And also with the level of capital cost creep or increase that they're seeing, and given the competition for talent like yourselves, and vendors, et cetera. Do you agree with that? And are there things that you as Fluor can do to help moderate that increase to allow some of these projects with rate of returns to allow for these programs to go ahead?

That's a great question, Michael. On the first part, governmental activism is nothing new. But I think, given the size of some of these programs and the delay, and the cash flow concerns of these companies, it's just been in the press more than we've seen in past cycles. I can't point to a mining program we have been involved in, in the last ten years, where we haven't had some sort of governmental challenge relative to permitting. Or some sort of civil unrest in some of these places around the globe. So those two elements aren't anything new. I just think that, because the projects have gotten so big, many of the customers are using that in their explanation of what they're doing from a capital perspective. So, again, I'd say this isn't anything that we didn't expect or anticipate. But I think it's a little more in the press right now. And obviously in the thoughts of many people.

I think the other aspect of your question is, I think we have started -- and one of the reasons why, I think, we've got such a position with many of the mining companies, in a pretty competitive landscape, is because we're really being innovative in trying to drive different solutions to drive down costs. In every project we look at being competitive, but at the end of the day one of the things that we're seeing is our ability to partner with our customers to drive out the wish lists that are inherent in every capital program that we get into. Which drives a fair amount of the escalation in costs that we see. So, I'm pretty pleased with where we stand with the dialogue with our mining companies in finding solutions to hold down capital costs. And deal with the timing element of some of these programs. Such that we don't see the huge boom that we saw in our Oil & Gas segment a couple of years back, where you saw the significant escalation in commodity pricing. The cost of engineered equipment as well as the cost of craft labor. So, even though it's a little troublesome to see the delays, it's certainly not something that we didn't anticipate.

I know one client in Toronto is relying on you on that with a major project. I appreciate your comments. Thanks, David.

George O'Leary with Tudor Pickering.

Given recent events that we've seen in the E&C space, I think M&A is on everybody's mind. Just wanted to get a better picture for how you guys are thinking about M&A. What sectors or end markets interest you. And maybe what geographies, as well, are interesting.

I think we've been very clear that our appetite for acquisition is niche in nature. We've also been very clear that in the areas of fabrication and construction are important to us. In some places, it's a matter of us growing what we already have. And in other places it's about seeking partners and developing our own capability in certain regions. I think our announcement in Brazil is an example of where we feel like partnering is the best way to gain that construction capability. When I think about the Gulf Coast, that's home for us. And we've got quite a capability with regard to direct hire construction in that market. And that's obviously a place where we're going to grow that capability to service the customers' needs. But I think I restate our approach relative to adding skill sets that are necessary for our offering to our customers. And we'll see how the market treats other types of acquisitions.

Great, thank you very much. And then one more question. Just could we get an update SMR and NuScale, and how that's all proceeding?

Yes, thanks for that question. We are, as I said in the prepared remarks, we submitted our application for FOA about four weeks ago. And we're very happy about the reception we've gotten. We held an industry day last week in Oregon. It was very well attended, not only by potential customers but also by potential partners. And we continue to have dialogue with manufacturing type partners that we hope will come in and be a partner in how we monetize this operation. As I've said, I believe the small modular reactor is a huge piece of the future generating capacity. It fits into several markets that we already have a good foot in. All from the standpoint of the US government's use of this type of technology. I think there's a bigger market outside of United States, I think, which fits very nicely into our footprint. And we'll be able to deploy these units from an engineering, procurement, and construction perspective. But then I think there's also a third segment of that market where there is energy-intensive industrial uses that will change their cost basis once this technology is proven out. I still am as bullish on the market. And I am more encouraged about our future prospects from bringing in additional talents and skills to share in the R&D responsibility deploying this technology.

Great, thanks very much, David.

Steven Fisher, UBS.

Good to see the award on Brunswick county. I am just wondering how you feel about the risk profile of that project. And then, more broadly, you mentioned about increasing fixed price mix generally as the transportation and power picks up. So how are you thinking about how much risk to put into the backlog over the next couple of years?

That's a great question. I think with regard to Brunswick, we're not concerned about that risk profile at all. We'll take in the limited notice to proceed in the third quarter and then the major piece of that as we get into next year. And it is in our sweet spot,. It's direct-hire construction in Virginia. We work for Dominion and have had great success with them as a customer. And it fits very nicely within the model that our power group has. With regard to lump sum as a component, if you go back in our history, we've been as high as 40%, 45% fixed price. I'm not signaling that that's where we're going. But I think it speaks to the capacity of the organization to grow prudently and profitably above the percentage where we stand today.

Looking up the power market, obviously those are going to be multiple hundred million dollar kinds of programs. As well as the infrastructure projects. In those two cases I'm very comfortable with those units' ability to deliver the expected profits on those programs. So I look at that percentage as a band. And our comfort in doing more lump sum is going to be specifically as it relates to the type of project, the location of the project, and the customers that we choose to do fixed-price projects with.

Great. And then are there any notable government programs that you are bidding on in the next few quarters that could replace the LOGCAP work when Afghanistan winds down? And then just general thoughts around government strategy.

I think there are several programs we're bidding on in the services space. Base services, base management, base operations and maintenance programs around the world. There's a couple of DOE bids that are ongoing with the normal partnering types of approach. We said in the prepared remarks we don't see any marked change through 2013. And in fact, if history repeats itself, when you think about the earnings trajectory, if you will, of Iraq, that will bode into '14, as well. Beyond that I really wouldn't want to comment.

Okay, thank you.

John Rogers, D.A. Davidson.

Two things. First of all, in terms of SG&A, the forecast you've given implies a pretty substantial ramp in the second half of the year. Maybe you could just touch on what's going on there.

Sure. I think we're just being a little conservative with respect to the historical trends, which do have some ramp up in the fourth quarter. Beyond that, there's no real story to present in terms of what we expect. That may ultimately prove to be conservative but, as I said, that's the normal trend.

Okay. And then just back to NuScale for a second, once the government decision is made, should we assume that you'll stop funding it, or half of it's going to be provided by the government?

No. I think it will provide a very large piece of the funding source. But so will potential partners that we will bring into that. It won't drop to zero. And there would be, once we're awarded FOA, there could be a ramp up in the short term. But then, obviously, drop as the funding is provided, not only, as I said, by the FOA but also by the partners relative to the manufacturing side of the equation.

Okay. And that decision is still due this quarter as it most likely now fourth quarter? I just saw -- reading the comments here.

The DOE and the NRC basically said that they wanted to make a decision in September. We've heard that they may want to accelerate that. But as far as from a planning perspective, we're still focused on sometime in September to hear on FOA.

Okay. And, David, one last question, if I could. Your comments relative to the chemicals industry and GTL projects hopefully coming in second half of 2013, does that apply to the gas-to-liquids, as well? Absolutely. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Will Gabrielski, Lazard Capital Markets.

Did you comment on what FX was in the quarter impact to backlog, if you could?

In terms of impact on backlog, there's very little impact on earnings, also very little. So not a big driver either way for us.

Okay. Did you make any adjustments to your existing [modern] work, negative or positive?

No, but we added the automotive sheet plant. But the other work, there was no change.

Okay. It's a big Oil & Gas number, I'm guessing. And it all came from -- or it sounds like you're just pinpointing the one project up in Canada. Can you give any more color geographically on what you booked in the quarter, upstream versus downstream, et cetera?

We're seeing some study work start on refining. I think petrochemicals is still driving the growth in FEED work, which includes GTL in that particular market. Upstream is still the Middle East and Central Asia, with a little bit of uptick in Australia.

And all that equaled $5 billion on top of your existing Canadian work in the quarter?

It was $5 billion in the quarter.

Right. No, I was just wondering what else beyond the Canadian oil sands job contributed meaningfully to that number?

I think a significant piece is the Canada project.

Okay. So it's just that much bigger than maybe we were thinking about coming into the quarter?

Right.

Okay, fair enough. Sorry for the confusion there. And then in terms of the work you'll be doing hopefully in the US on the chemical, pet-chem cycle, how is that going to compare maybe margin-wise to rest of world? And will you, as a target, will you be self-performing more work there? And will that have a positive margin benefit?

I think the answer to the latter question is absolutely. That's a keen focus of mine. I started my career on the construction side. And I have a passion for that. And recapturing that preeminence is something that's important to me. And in fact, that's part of our margin growth story because, in some cases, those are pass-throughs from a revenue standpoint and we don't enjoy the profitability, somebody else does. And our current strategy is to capture as much of that as prudent and dictated by the execution plan.

Okay. But that's mostly US where the direct-hire construction makes the most sense, right? Not internationally? Or are you looking more --?

No, I think there's places around the globe where we're quite comfortable and have experience in during direct-hire construction in the oil & gas space. And we're looking for those opportunities. There's some that we're already focused on, like the Santos project where we're doing some direct hire. And, obviously, building that capability in Australia, given the markets, will be beneficial over the longer term.

Okay. And lastly, on Santos, if you can just give a quick update on how the project is going. Obviously there was a lot of news during the quarter from the customer about the cost increases. And it definitely seems like they're accelerating some upstream work. I'm just wondering if you're exposed to that, and if you're benefiting at all?

I think we're executing per the plan. And I tell you, Santos has been a very good customer from just a working relationship standpoint. They're very talented. They know what they want. And we work very well with customers that have a robust project management capability. And we expect to see upside to that because of the relationship we're building.

Okay great. Thank you very much.

Brian Konigsberg, Vertical Research.

First on the I&I segment, just curious with the infrastructure. You have one in the bag already,. You've got several that you're pursuing. Historically, these have been much higher margin than the mining business. I'm just curious, as far as lead times and the ramp up and the expectation of the projects you are bringing in-house, when should we anticipate those are going to meaningfully contribute to the margin profile of the I&I segment? Is that a late 2013 type of dynamic, assuming you win your share of the projects you are pursuing?

Yes. You stated a good time frame.

Okay. Fair enough. And in Brazil, you have this new consortium. Can you just talk about some of the opportunities there? Is anything in the near term we should be looking for? And maybe the types of projects that you'll be pursuing there?

I think it's primarily oil & gas and primarily Petrobras, obviously. That's the big target. We are starting on some smaller programs. We're not going to get out of our swim lane, so to speak, and make sure that we do the right things. I think what you'll see in the near term is a fair amount of engineering and procurement services types of programs. And with Construcap we will grow into an ability to do some of the larger projects from an EPC basis. But for the rest of this year and early into next year, we're going to take a very measured approach so that we've got a sustainable relationship with Construcap.

Great. And finally on NuScale, just in light of the FOA funding, I assume you have a good chance of receiving that. You talked about bringing some partners onboard. But does the funding itself change your view as far as the ownership structure? I know you wanted to reduce, maybe become a minority owner. But with the funding in place does it change your view on that?

No, not at all. The thing that I think is going to help is, once we're successful with FOA, it's not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, but it's a move towards one, which I think makes NuScale as an investment for others much more attractive.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Tahira Afzal, KeyBanc.

Congratulations on the quarter. First question is really in regards to the scope expansion we've seen. A lot of your peers that have reported have also indicated scope expansion. Could you provide a bit of color really on why we are seeing a general broad-based scope expansion phase? And, just putting it in perspective, because we saw something similar in the previous up cycle. So I would love to get a bit of color on why we're seeing these scope expansions in general right now. And whether they're going to continue. Because if you really look at your quarter in terms of awards in the space, strong, even with no large super bookings.

I think it's not necessarily additional scope. It's the phasing of the project. So, this was anticipated. There's puts and takes on the values of those. But this addition was not necessarily escalation, if that was your question. It was more the sequencing of how the customer is sanctioning the project, which matches up with our conservative new award intake philosophy.

Got it, okay. So you could potentially, when you look out, other than the large development that are yet to happen, do you see other similar scope expansions as a possibility?

I think there's some, yes. And then I think there's, in some cases, phase 2s that we're already focused on that we would bring in to backlog as we are sanctioned on those in the out years. And those are some pretty large programs, as well.

Got it, okay. And the second question is in regards to the Power side. When you go back to the early 2000s when we had the IPP boom, flows down as much as $3.5 million in annual bookings on the Power side. And I think, given the oil & gas cycle, a lot of people tend to forget that. So, as we go into the potentially a fairly large buildout and switchout from coal to natural gas, I would love to get a perspective of where you could see bookings trends going, and whether we could replicate the past.

I think we can replicate the past. The challenge is going to be more on the regulatory realities than anything else. We've already done the front ends and continued to do some of the front ends for several of the major generators relative to their coal fleet. And what has to be done if, in fact, the regulations are solid. I think I've said in previous conversations, certain regulators don't like the answers so they put new permits in place. But they don't describe exactly how you get them. And I think that's where a lot of our customers are right now. I was at an event with one of the power CEOs. And his comment to the audience was -- We're to spend $20 billion to deal with our coal fleet if we only had surety of regulation. So we're very well-positioned with most of those customers. And, in fact, are working with some on the early works around that coal equation and what happens.

I think the replacement, in my mind, is primarily on the gas side. And as you mentioned, we are very well-positioned and have the resume to be very successful there. I think one of the interesting things that is going on right now is, when you think about -- it's 150 degrees today in Dallas. A little bit of an exaggeration but it feels like 150. But what we didn't have last winter was a cold enough winter to get those reserve margins to a point where the public sees a need for change. I think with this summer and some of the challenges and conservation activities that are going aren't going to be enough to keep rolling brownouts to take place, as we get through the end of August. So I think public opinion is going to change when air conditioners aren't running. And I think we're close to seeing that. So I think there's a couple of things converging that are going to cause a significant uptick in gas-fired power and I think we will be very active in that space.

Great, and always good to hear. Last question is really in regards to India. Clearly you've been probably also following the news recently on the big blackouts there. Is it too early to think about the potential opportunities arising out of that for Fluor? Could it lead to, perhaps, more accelerated buildout of infrastructure, on the Power side, in particular?

That's a great question. I think, with the reliance work we've taken in, we've added to what I think is already a robust capability in India. We've had a significant presence there from an engineering perspective for almost two decades. And we're getting comfortable with the EPC market there. And I think there's opportunity for us in that power sector. But again, I think there's a lot more clarity required on exactly what the Indian producers will do before I get too excited about that being a significant piece of our business in the near-term.

Andrew Wittmann, Robert W. Baird.

I couldn't help but notice that the margins in the Global Services business were a little bit higher this quarter. I was just wondering what's driving that. Was there anything one-time? Or is it maybe an indication of just demand for engineering talent and equipment, that maybe demand has risen to the point where you're able to charge a little bit more?

Really, each of the businesses in Global Services performed well in the quarter, so there's no one individual driver. And there aren't a whole bunch, or any, singular unique events that stand out. There was the sale of equipment in one instance to a customer that had a gain associated with it, but that's still relatively immaterial. So nothing singular to point out. They're performing well and obviously we're happy with that.

Is this margin level that we saw in the quarter --?

I don't think I want to, business by business, give line item guidance for margins for the rest of the year. We're happy, as I said, with how they performed in the quarter. We've given our full guidance for the year, which projects two more good quarters. And I think we probably just need to leave it at that.

Nice try, though.

David, on the infrastructure, and specific to the transportation side, it sounds like, obviously, your tone, to me at least, sounds a little bit improved. Is this just something that's been incubating for a while with the way the projects have been queuing up for you? Or are we seeing real benefits from the fact that we now have a two-year transportation bill? And if not, what's your outlook from here? And how supportive that bill will be for the next couple of years?

I think it's kind of half and half. I think we have had a fair amount of just the gestation period of developing some of these programs going. As well as the ongoing debate within the various states and the federal government about where the money is coming from. I think the infrastructure bill will be helpful, particularly around the TIFIA type of support that some of these programs require. But I think most of what we've seen is just a timing issue on bid slates. Obviously, there's some very large programs out there that we're going to participate in. We're bidding right now and I feel confident that we'll show some success as we get towards the end of this year and early next year.

And just on Greater Gabbard, you mentioned that you're hopeful for a swift resolution there. Is that an indication that you actually are seeing real progress? Or is that really just what you're hoping for right now?

We're in the middle of the arbitration right now. Which, frankly speaking, is ahead of what I thought it would be. You're at the tail end of Wimbledon, and it's being held in London. You're in the middle of the Olympics and it's almost vacation season. I lost a bet with my counselor that we would actually get into the arbitration as early as we did. So I think we are very pleased with the speed of the proceedings. And we still feel very confident in our position.

Robert Connors, Stifel Nicolaus.

When you look at these large petrochemical crackers, are the billable man-hours within them comparable to what you did on some of your large North American refinery projects in the past?

Yes and no. I think we'll probably have more detailed engineering content in those than we saw in, what I would say is comparable would be the petrochemical in both China and the Middle East. But approaching the kind of content that you see in a refinery project.

And then your FEED-to-EPC conversion rate is pretty darn good when it comes to downstream. Do you expect that same conversion rate on a couple of these large upstream FEEDs that you're working on? And is there any update on that $30 billion FEED number that you've given in the past?

I think the $30 billion FEED number is still a good number. And we're active on a fair amount of those projects. I think that relative to our hit rate, assuming that we are performing well for our customer, I think our hit rate is very well. And so far we don't see any signs that we're not performing for our customers. I think that the value proposition that we have is largely supported by the talents of our teams. And we feel very good about our ability to staff multiple major programs around the globe, including the $30 billion worth of work in the Gulf Coast. I think the other point I would make is, in this period of time where mining has really grown, it's allowed us to significantly grow our bandwidth from a management talent perspective. So I feel very good about our ability to continue to grow and do multiple programs, even more so than you so in the refining sector in the last cycle.

Okay. And then if I could squeeze one more, just regarding some of the scope expansions. Do those tend to have a faster book and burn profile because a lot of your resources are already on-site? And does that have any material impact on margin levels?

No, I would say not. As I mentioned in a previous question, we knew they were coming and planned for them. So they're already planned in our revenue and profitability burn in the out quarters.

Okay. Thanks for taking my questions.

And that does conclude our question-and-answer session. At this time I would like to turn the call back to Mr. Seaton for any additional or closing remarks.

Thank you very much, Operator. And, again, I would like to thank everybody for participating in our call today. As I think you've heard, we feel very good about where we are as a company, with the performance we've had in the first half of 2012. I think we began the year with a fair amount of economic and market uncertainty. And I think we will all agree that broad sentiment in that fact has not improved much. But, despite the continuing macro headwinds, we're very positive about our progress in growing our Company as it relates to our diversity, as well as our global footprint and experience. As I've said in the past, I greatly appreciate your interest in our Company. And we look forward to continued growth as we go through this year and next. So with that, I'll end the call and wish everyone a good day.

And again that does conclude today's conference. We do thank you for your participation.